FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Here’s yet another story (h/t: Israpundit) about the probable destruction of artifacts which may have immeasurable historical and religious significance to the Jewish people by the Islamic Waqf which controls the Temple Mount:

The High Court ruled against the Israel Law Center this week in a petition aimed at stopping the destruction of Jewish artifacts dating back to the Temple era. The court ruled that the destruction cannot be stopped using private prosecution. In addition to rejecting the private case against the Islamic Wakf Authority on the Temple Mount, the High Court rejected the Israel Law Center’s demand that the attorney general be ordered to take action against the Temple Mount destruction.

It’s shocking and infuriating to think that this has been going on for years:

[A local resident] said that Waqf attempts to conceal the work but that it is not hard to see what is happening these days on the Temple Mount. “The Waqf works are constant, we see tractors going to and fro carrying earth. The work is taking place near the Dome of the Rock, exactly in the place between where our Holy Temple’s courtyard and the Altar used to stand. The Waqf claims they are doing pavement work there, or so they advertise in the news sites, but in practice they surrounded themselves in white burlap and we see there is scaffolding. I suppose that for paving works there should be no need for scaffolding.”

In 1999, the Waqf excavated an area of the Temple Mount referred to as ‘Solomon’s Stables’ to build a new mosque. They refused to permit archeaological supervision of the construction work. Here’s what happened, as described by an Israeli archaeologist to a Christian audience:

“In November 1999, the Islamic authorities carried out a huge excavation of [the part of the Temple Mount known as Solomon’s Stable],” [Prof. Gabriel Barkay of the Hebrew University] said. “They built a modern entrance to the building instead of the existing entrance, and they dug a huge pit with the help of bulldozers and 300 [dump trucks] that removed the dirt from the earthen fills of this spot.”

Barkay showed pictures of tractors demolishing structures dating to the Twelfth Century Crusades. The demolition went on without any regulation or archaeological supervision, he said. Builders at the Temple Mount took many of the ancient stones from earlier Jewish buildings and cut them down to make modern stones.

“Who knows how many inscriptions we lost in this way?” Barkay said. “Who knows how many decorated stones were defaced in this manner? The earth was saturated with ancient materials, and it was dumped in the Kidron Valley to the east of the Temple Mount.”

Many of the Jewish and Christian artifacts dating to the Crusades and to the first and second temples were covered up, destroyed or removed. In view of these developments, Barkay began to act…

“We began a project of collecting the dirt from the dumping areas. We moved the piles of dirt to a well-protected area,” he recounted. “We covered them with plastic sheets. Each pile was marked with the exact place of origin and exact depth we could estimate from which it came…”

“This effort already yielded some scores of coins,” he said. “We have coins from the 12th century, the 19th century, up to the first century B.C. We have some second-century B.C. Antonian coins. We have some Herodian coins.”

Among the other things, the team found a Christian charm bearing the image of John the Baptist with an infant Jesus and the Jordan River in the background. They found an alabaster dish from the Persian Period and an ivory comb from the Second Temple period. Though much had already been lost, the substance of what they are finding is encouraging amid the delicate and unfortunate situation.

Here is a photo of the Solomon’s Stables construction activity. Compare this to the care with which archaeologists work!

Unsupervised construction activity on the Temple Mount, 1999

There is a political context. Yasser Arafat often insisted that there was no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. For example,

Arafat made the allegation during the July 2000 Camp David talks, according to U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, who was present when Arafat spoke. Ross has now revealed: “He did offer one new idea, which was that the Temple didn’t exist in Jerusalem, that it was in Nablus.” (Jerusalem Post, May 15, 2002)

Here is a snippet from a 2001 interview with the Palestinian Authority-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, ‘Ikrima Sabri:

Sabri: There is not [even] the smallest indication of the existence of a Jewish temple on this place in the past. In the whole city, there is not even a single stone indicating Jewish History. Our right, on the other hand, is very clear. This place belongs to us for 1500 years. Even when it was conquered by the Crusaders, it remained Al-Aqsa, and we got it back soon afterwards. The Jews do not even know exactly where their temple stood. Therefore, we do not accept that they have any rights, underneath the surface or above it.

Die Welt: It is agreed among archeologists that the Wailing-Wall is part of the foundation of Herod’s temple. The Bible and other antique sources report about this place in detail. Why can’t you respect the Jewish connection to this place?

Sabri: It is the art of the Jews to deceive the world. But they can’t do it to us. There is not a single stone in the Wailing-Wall relating to Jewish History. The Jews cannot legitimately claim this wall, neither religiously nor historically. The Committee of the League of Nations recommended in 1930, to allow the Jews to pray there, in order to keep them quiet. But by no means did it acknowledge that the wall belongs to them.

It’s understandable that Israelis are certain that one of the objectives of the Waqf is to deliberately erase evidence of Jewish provenance by destroying artifacts.

The 1967 decision to leave the control of the Temple Mount in the hands of the Waqf surprised even the Arabs, who assumed that the Israeli conquest of the area was, er, a conquest. Some think that this was the biggest mistake an Israeli government has made since 1948 (another candidate is the decision to accept Arafat’s PLO as the ‘legitimate representative of the Palestinian people’ in the Oslo negotiations).

There is a reason that the Waqf is allowed to get away with doing construction work in an area of such sensitivity without supervision: in a word, fear. Fear of ‘Muslim rage’, easily turned on by the Waqf and Palestinian religious leaders, as illustrated by the riots surrounding the Israeli attempt to repair the damaged Mughrabi gate.

Israel’s supreme court has apparently decided to continue the policy, which amounts to a de facto abdication of sovereignty over the heart of Jerusalem and the most important site in Judaism.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs, Temple Mount, Waqf

— Good morning Mr. President!

— Morning, Pete. What’s happening today?

— Well, your calendar says “election over, screw Zionists…”

— Oh, right. The Zionists. Well, tell them that they have to get out of ‘Arab East Jerusalem’. Don’t they know that ‘settlements are illegal under international law’ and that ‘the Palestinians want East Jerusalem for the capital of their state’?

— Great sound bites, sir!

— Thanks, I’ve been reading the New York Times and listening to NPR. By the way, we have to do something about illegal immigration.

— Illegal immigration? That hasn’t been one of your issues…

— Just look outside! Look at all of those people milling around!

— Er, those are newly-elected Republican Congresspeople, sir. They’re checking out the offices.

— Oh. Too bad we can’t deport them. Look at that guy over there… he looks like some kind of leader.

— Yes sir, that’s Eric Cantor, he’s Majority Whip now.

— Cantor… sounds like a Zionist.

— Yes sir, I’m afraid he is.

— Well, let’s get going on our work. Have that annoying woman at State tell that Bubbi or Bibi or whatever that… what’s that?

— There’s an Islamic delegation waiting to see you, sir. They say it’s important. They say that we can’t stay here…

— Can’t stay in the White House? Are they crazy?

— They say it’s a mosque, sir. They say it’s always been a mosque.

Technorati Tags: Obama, Israel, Mosque, Eric Cantor

The midterm elections in the US made it clear that many Americans are unhappy with the performance of their leadership. Of course, most of the unhappiness is due to the poor economic situation. But not all of it.

I think that many of us believe that we haven’t come to grips with the challenge posed on 9/11. We are involved in two hugely expensive wars, seriously stressing our volunteer military, wars which are certain — because of the way they’ve been financed by borrowing — to cause further economic problems in the future. And the fact is that these wars have been inconclusive at best. After nine years, Osama bin Laden is still at large, Baghdad is in the throes of a violent terrorist attack as I write, and we appear to be looking for a way to surrender safely in Afghanistan.

The US is in full retreat from the Middle East, apparently unable to challenge Iran which every day moves closer to establishing its domination of the region. We’ve allowed Hizballah to rearm and Syria and Iran to subvert Lebanon. We’ve stood by and watched as one of the most powerful states in Middle East, Turkey, moved from being a Western ally to joining the Iranian axis.

It’s always dangerous to make historical comparisons, but the best analogy I can think of is the period of ideological competition, diplomatic maneuvering and vicious proxy wars that characterized the “Cold War” between the West and the Soviet Union. There is one major difference, though:

Today, our leaders refuse to name the conflict. This, I think, is because there is a religious dimension to it, and Americans are very uncomfortable with the idea of a religious war. Although our struggle is with radical Islamist ideology, not Islam, there seems to be a fear of and taboo against mentioning Islam in connection with our ideological — and increasingly military — enemies.

In the domestic arena, we see this hysterical blindness — that’s the best way to characterize it — playing out in our inability to understand that some of the organizations that speak for Islam in America are heavily influenced by radical Islamism, as I wrote yesterday.

Given all of this, I see an opportunity for a completely new approach, and candidates or parties that adopt it will be very appealing in 2012.  Here are some general principles for recognizing the conflict and responding effectively:

• We are in an ideological struggle for world domination not unlike the Cold War.
• This ideology is called ‘radical Islamism’, an expansionist political movement which seeks to subjugate societies throughout the world to Islamic law. This ideology is diametrically opposite to that of the Enlightenment, on which our Constitution is based.
• Radical Islamism and its sponsors are the enemy. The main sponsors are the Iranian regime and circles in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. We must make clear to the Saudis and Pakistanis that if they can’t control their hostile elements then we will treat the regimes as hostile. Turkey, too, will have to choose sides and accept the consequences.
• Iran must not be allowed to deploy nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s should be confiscated.
• We must ally ourselves with those countries that are on our side in the struggle, like Israel and India. We should stand behind those allies. During the Cold War we didn’t support Soviet claims in Eastern Europe, so why should we support Arab claims on East Jerusalem today?
• We must understand that Islamists do want to attack our way of life both by terrorism and subversion at home. While we must avoid religious prejudice, we can’t turn a blind eye to the activities of radical Islamists because we are afraid of being accused of it. Not every Muslim is an enemy — God forbid — but there is a connection between Islam and Islamism.

None of this is as simple as it appears and it certainly won’t be easy. But we can at least start describing it correctly. While Americans are unfamiliar with the idea of a religious war, they certainly understand an ideological one, which is what this is.

Future historians will probably use the date of September 11, 2001 to mark the beginning of the conflict. In recognition of this, I suggest that it be called “The 9/11 War.” The least that we can ask of our politicians is that they, too, agree on the nature of the struggle — and that their policies be designed so that we will be victorious in it.

Technorati Tags: radical Islamism, Cold War, US administration

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), a radical Sunni Islamist organization, was founded in 1928. Today it has several million members and branches all over the world, including the US. Although the Ikhwan’s goal is similar to that of other Islamist groups, calling for the establishment of a transnational caliphate and the application of Islamic law and principles to all aspects of society, it differs from al Qaeda because — at least officially — it opposes violence at the present time, in most circumstances. But there are exceptions, including the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Hence it gave rise in 1987 to Hamas, its ‘Palestinian’ branch, which is open and explicit about its antisemitic and jihadist position. There is little or no daylight between the Ikhwan and Hamas, and Brotherhood-linked organizations around the world have played a large role in funding and supporting Hamas.

There is little doubt that some of the groups that claim to speak for Muslims in the US also have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. The most widely-cited evidence is the “Holy Land Foundation” (HLF) case in which numerous individuals and groups were charged with material support for terrorism, conspiracy and money laundering in providing funds for Hamas and other jihadist groups. After a mistrial in 2007,  several individuals were convicted in 2008 and sentenced to long prison terms. The process gave rise to a list of unindicted co-conspirators which included the Council on American-Islamic relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Both were cited as belonging to the US Muslim Brotherhood.

Here is what the Investigative Project on Terrorism (headed by Steven Emerson) had to say about ISNA (more details about ISNA’s connection with the Brotherhood are here):

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is the largest and most influential Muslim advocacy group in the United States. Its annual conference draws tens of thousands of people and, in 2009, was honored with a speech by Valerie Jarrett, a top advisor to President Barack Obama.

President Ingrid Mattson is Director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations at the Hartford Seminary and active in interfaith dialogue.

ISNA has a troubling history, however, and its leadership ranks beyond Mattson include people who date back to the group’s foundation by Muslim Brotherhood members. The organization grew out of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), which also was founded by Brotherhood members…

Its conferences have featured rhetoric in support of terrorist groups and other radicalism. This continued at the 2009 convention, where panelists expressed extreme anti-Semitism and support for the terrorist group Hizballah.

So it was very surprising when, in 2007, Rabbi Eric Yoffie of the Union for Reform Judaism announced a cooperative educational venture with ISNA. Rabbi Yoffie spoke at an ISNA convention, and several months later hosted ISNA’s President Ingrid Mattson of ISNA at URJ’s biennial convention. Yoffie said,

We chose ISNA as our partner because it is the closest equivalent to the Union within the American Muslim community. It has issued a strong and unequivocal condemnation of terror, including a specific condemnation of Hizbollah and Hamas terror against Jews and Israelis. It has also recognized Israel as a Jewish state and supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These statements provide the framework of common values that we believe are necessary for a fruitful dialogue to occur.

I had a hard time finding these statements. There are many condemning ‘terrorism’ and particular terrorist acts, but few that mention specific organizations. However, I finally found a press release issued by ISNA after the inconclusive end of the first HLF trial:

To be clear, ISNA remains consistent in its rejection of terrorism and violence. ISNA rejects all acts of terrorism, including those perpetrated by Hamas, Hizbullah and any other group that claims Islam as their inspiration. ISNA has encouraged and continues to encourage a just and fair settlement of disputes between Israel, the Palestinians and their neighbors through diplomacy and other peaceful means.

This is a very carefully crafted statement. It rejects ‘acts of terrorism’ perpetrated by Hamas and Hizballah. But it does not condemn those organizations themselves for their essential antisemitic nature.

The closest thing I can find to recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is ISNA’s approval of the ‘quartet conditions’, that is, that Hamas should recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept prior agreements between Israel and the PA. I doubt strongly that ISNA would agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state today anyway, since the PA itself rejects it. And ‘two-state solution’ is highly ambiguous.

In fact, a more accurate reflection of ISNA’s attitude toward Israel might be this press release,

ISNA Condemns Israeli Massacre On Board of Gaza Freedom Flotilla, Calls for End of Illegal Blockade

in which ISNA aligns itself perfectly with Hamas and the Turkish IHH in their attempt to spin the forced self-defense of Israelis on the Mavi Marmara as yet another phony ‘war crime’.

No, we can’t expect all (or any) Muslims to be Zionists. But Jewish organizations should choose their ‘partners’ from among their friends, not enemies.

Technorati Tags: ISNA, URJ, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, Ingrid Mattson